|
United States44401 Posts
On March 27 2013 23:03 fabiano wrote:
It is NEVER ok to nuke anyone... to nuke is one of the most coward moves a country can possibly make.
Imagine a ticking clock on a nuke on a launch pad in a bunker that can only be penetrated by a nuclear warhead. Your warhead will have limited fallout and the bunker is in an isolated area with no civilian population, their nuke is aimed at a civilian population and you have no other means to prevent catastrophe. Still unacceptable?
|
On March 27 2013 23:03 fabiano wrote:
It is NEVER ok to nuke anyone... to nuke is one of the most coward moves a country can possibly make.
I'd much rather deal with nukes than bioweapons.
|
On March 27 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 22:58 Zeo wrote:
So if Georgia claimed they had nuclear missiles back in 2008 and they started talking about defending themselves, it would have been ok for Russia to nuke Tbilisi?
Or if China nuked Tibet for the same reason, everything would be rainbows and sunshine and China would be called a hero country and that day would be called hero-China day from that day forth?
Nobody can use nukes, don't care who you are or why or whatever. Using a nuclear weapon against another country is the most serious crime a country can commit, using one gets the whole world on your ass and you get put down like the rabid dog that you are. No exceptions NK are threatening to launch an offensive strike without their national sovereignty being imposed upon. Your examples are in no way comparable to that. Furthermore your "nobody can use nukes" plan lacks any response to the current situation in which a rogue state says they will and you have no peaceful ways to prevent it. You don't actually have the red button, someone else does, you can say "no exceptions" but what you say doesn't actually stop them using one which then leads to the inevitable "is it justifiable to use one nuke to prevent two". This is the problem with moral absolutism, it only makes sense from your ivory tower, once you're in the real world it falls apart.
well, UN has very strict sanctions against NK, so one can argue if this impose danger on their national security and sovereignty.
|
On March 27 2013 23:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 23:03 fabiano wrote:
It is NEVER ok to nuke anyone... to nuke is one of the most coward moves a country can possibly make. Imagine a ticking clock on a nuke on a launch pad in a bunker that can only be penetrated by a nuclear warhead. Your warhead will have limited fallout and the bunker is in an isolated area with no civilian population, their nuke is aimed at a civilian population and you have no other means to prevent catastrophe. Still unacceptable?
Come on Kwark.... "What if I shat rainbows that could feed the world"
|
United States44401 Posts
On March 27 2013 23:15 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 22:58 Zeo wrote:
So if Georgia claimed they had nuclear missiles back in 2008 and they started talking about defending themselves, it would have been ok for Russia to nuke Tbilisi?
Or if China nuked Tibet for the same reason, everything would be rainbows and sunshine and China would be called a hero country and that day would be called hero-China day from that day forth?
Nobody can use nukes, don't care who you are or why or whatever. Using a nuclear weapon against another country is the most serious crime a country can commit, using one gets the whole world on your ass and you get put down like the rabid dog that you are. No exceptions NK are threatening to launch an offensive strike without their national sovereignty being imposed upon. Your examples are in no way comparable to that. Furthermore your "nobody can use nukes" plan lacks any response to the current situation in which a rogue state says they will and you have no peaceful ways to prevent it. You don't actually have the red button, someone else does, you can say "no exceptions" but what you say doesn't actually stop them using one which then leads to the inevitable "is it justifiable to use one nuke to prevent two". This is the problem with moral absolutism, it only makes sense from your ivory tower, once you're in the real world it falls apart. well, UN has very strict sanctions against NK, so one can argue if this impose danger on their national security and sovereignty.
No, one can't. A sanction is a collective agreement not to engage in voluntary trade with someone. It is in no way comparable to the physical imposition of force. To use a basic metaphor. Imagine there was a kid on the playground who was a violent asshole to everyone and all the other kids got together and agreed not to play with him anymore because he's a dick who hurts them. And then the asshole kid murders one of the other kids because he wouldn't play with him on the playground.
In the above example NK's shelling/attacking of random SK stuff is being a violent asshole, sanctions are not playing with them and murdering another kid is the launch of a nuke against a civilian population. You do not have a right to demand other people engage in voluntary activities with you. The argument that NK's sovereignty is being imposed upon by sanctions fails, they should be asking themselves why nobody likes them, not threatening the people who refuse to talk to them.
|
United States44401 Posts
On March 27 2013 23:16 TOCHMY wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 23:10 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 23:03 fabiano wrote:
It is NEVER ok to nuke anyone... to nuke is one of the most coward moves a country can possibly make. Imagine a ticking clock on a nuke on a launch pad in a bunker that can only be penetrated by a nuclear warhead. Your warhead will have limited fallout and the bunker is in an isolated area with no civilian population, their nuke is aimed at a civilian population and you have no other means to prevent catastrophe. Still unacceptable? Come on Kwark.... "What if I shat rainbows that could feed the world"
Whenever anyone comes up with an absolute rule it should always be challenged with a hypothetical, if only to prove that absolutism is a moral dead end. The example is relevant to this discussion, NK are threatening a nuclear strike and I would like to see if the people who come up with these absolute moral guidelines have a response to a hostile party simply not playing by their rules.
|
United States24805 Posts
On March 27 2013 23:16 TOCHMY wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 23:10 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 23:03 fabiano wrote:
It is NEVER ok to nuke anyone... to nuke is one of the most coward moves a country can possibly make. Imagine a ticking clock on a nuke on a launch pad in a bunker that can only be penetrated by a nuclear warhead. Your warhead will have limited fallout and the bunker is in an isolated area with no civilian population, their nuke is aimed at a civilian population and you have no other means to prevent catastrophe. Still unacceptable? Come on Kwark.... "What if I shat rainbows that could feed the world"
if you can describe situations where the absolute statement fails, the fact that it's not likely is irrelevant. when people on tl use extreme examples to illustrate a point and they are told they are being ridiculous, they usually aren't.
absolute statements, even about nukes, are useless.... even this one is questionable xp
sorry, my shift key on my phone isn't working lol
|
On March 27 2013 23:16 TOCHMY wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 23:10 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 23:03 fabiano wrote:
It is NEVER ok to nuke anyone... to nuke is one of the most coward moves a country can possibly make. Imagine a ticking clock on a nuke on a launch pad in a bunker that can only be penetrated by a nuclear warhead. Your warhead will have limited fallout and the bunker is in an isolated area with no civilian population, their nuke is aimed at a civilian population and you have no other means to prevent catastrophe. Still unacceptable? Come on Kwark.... "What if I shat rainbows that could feed the world"
Makes me wonder what rainbows taste like, not like shit I hope 
Also makes me wonder what the situation would have been like now if the US under Bush hadn't cut food aid to NK from 600,000 tones to practically zero, but I guess using food as a weapon had all the right results
EDIT: Too many metaphors used in last few pages is the real problem here me thinks
|
I was reading on yahoo news that they cut there last military hotline with Seoul. This pretty means we don't want to talk to you, the blood is too bad. I really think they will try attacking something. That something could be just a ship, it could be a full out attack, I don't know. Could be just a way for the new leader to show he is wiling to do the dirty work. To have the army back you would really strenghten your hands on control of the country. Who knows, these guys are so crazy. Technically the USA is still at war with them, so I am sure the US has plans to act if something goes down, heck they likely have plans for a first strike. And if war broke up, I would imagine that the US consulate would tell us citizens to go home.
|
Kwark and micro, i think ur not seeing the point hes trying to make  Or choose not to comment on it. Remove "NEVER OK" and put in "It's not OK" so that we can skip this absolute statement argument.
Anyways, I think we all have made our points by now and we are all just going around in circles, having the same arguments worded differently.
So maybe we can drop this NUKE question now and focus on stupid shit NK says/does?
|
United States44401 Posts
On March 27 2013 23:42 TOCHMY wrote:Kwark and micro, i think ur not seeing the point hes trying to make Or choose not to comment on it. Remove "NEVER OK" and put in "It's not OK" so that we can skip this absolute statement argument. Anyways, I think we all have made our points by now and we are all just going around in circles, having the same arguments worded differently. So maybe we can drop this NUKE question now and focus on stupid shit NK says/does?
Never okay means unjustifiable. Not okay means not good but doesn't rule out situations in which it could be justifiable. There's a huge difference.
|
United States24805 Posts
On March 27 2013 23:42 TOCHMY wrote:Kwark and micro, i think ur not seeing the point hes trying to make Or choose not to comment on it. Remove "NEVER OK" and put in "It's not OK" so that we can skip this absolute statement argument. Anyways, I think we all have made our points by now and we are all just going around in circles, having the same arguments worded differently. So maybe we can drop this NUKE question now and focus on stupid shit NK says/does?
don't pin this on us... if he had said 'nukes are usually the wrong move' nobody would have argued, and he knows that... he intentionally did not say that.
definitely i would like to see some action from nk that suggests we arent heading towards war...
damn shift key
|
On March 27 2013 23:37 HeeroFX wrote:
I was reading on yahoo news that they cut there last military hotline with Seoul. This pretty means we don't want to talk to you, the blood is too bad. I really think they will try attacking something. That something could be just a ship, it could be a full out attack, I don't know. Could be just a way for the new leader to show he is wiling to do the dirty work. To have the army back you would really strenghten your hands on control of the country. Who knows, these guys are so crazy. Technically the USA is still at war with them, so I am sure the US has plans to act if something goes down, heck they likely have plans for a first strike. And if war broke up, I would imagine that the US consulate would tell us citizens to go home.
Part of me hopes that they do another retarded fringe activity, like shell an island on the border. Then SK esplodes the two huge Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un statues, and no one dies. I just think a surgical strike on those big statues would be the best middle finger ever.
|
NK doesn't have a satellite to guide their missile. does that ends the discussion?.
|
On March 27 2013 23:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 23:15 mdb wrote:On March 27 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 22:58 Zeo wrote:
So if Georgia claimed they had nuclear missiles back in 2008 and they started talking about defending themselves, it would have been ok for Russia to nuke Tbilisi?
Or if China nuked Tibet for the same reason, everything would be rainbows and sunshine and China would be called a hero country and that day would be called hero-China day from that day forth?
Nobody can use nukes, don't care who you are or why or whatever. Using a nuclear weapon against another country is the most serious crime a country can commit, using one gets the whole world on your ass and you get put down like the rabid dog that you are. No exceptions NK are threatening to launch an offensive strike without their national sovereignty being imposed upon. Your examples are in no way comparable to that. Furthermore your "nobody can use nukes" plan lacks any response to the current situation in which a rogue state says they will and you have no peaceful ways to prevent it. You don't actually have the red button, someone else does, you can say "no exceptions" but what you say doesn't actually stop them using one which then leads to the inevitable "is it justifiable to use one nuke to prevent two". This is the problem with moral absolutism, it only makes sense from your ivory tower, once you're in the real world it falls apart. well, UN has very strict sanctions against NK, so one can argue if this impose danger on their national security and sovereignty. No, one can't. A sanction is a collective agreement not to engage in voluntary trade with someone. It is in no way comparable to the physical imposition of force. To use a basic metaphor. Imagine there was a kid on the playground who was a violent asshole to everyone and all the other kids got together and agreed not to play with him anymore because he's a dick who hurts them. And then the asshole kid murders one of the other kids because he wouldn't play with him on the playground. In the above example NK's shelling/attacking of random SK stuff is being a violent asshole, sanctions are not playing with them and murdering another kid is the launch of a nuke against a civilian population. You do not have a right to demand other people engage in voluntary activities with you. The argument that NK's sovereignty is being imposed upon by sanctions fails, they should be asking themselves why nobody likes them, not threatening the people who refuse to talk to them.
Your analogy would be correct if you add a little background, where some time before the kids have stopped playing with other assholes and some time after that they have bombed the house of the other assholes without the other assholes actually doing anything. Other assholes in this case are countries like Iraq, Serbia, Libya. From this point of view the sanctions are reasonable threat to the national security of NK.
|
On March 27 2013 23:48 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 23:42 TOCHMY wrote:Kwark and micro, i think ur not seeing the point hes trying to make Or choose not to comment on it. Remove "NEVER OK" and put in "It's not OK" so that we can skip this absolute statement argument. Anyways, I think we all have made our points by now and we are all just going around in circles, having the same arguments worded differently. So maybe we can drop this NUKE question now and focus on stupid shit NK says/does? don't pin this on us... if he had said 'nukes are usually the wrong move' nobody would have argued, and he knows that... he intentionally did not say that. definitely i would like to see some action from nk that suggests we arent heading towards war... damn shift key
I'm sorry, wasn't my intention to paint you red. Regardless, let's move on shall we?
|
On March 27 2013 23:49 xM(Z wrote:
NK doesn't have a satellite to guide their missile. does that ends the discussion?.
sure they don't have a satelite, and if they did the US would likely find a way to destroy it haha. The biggest issue is selling there nuclear stuff to iran for example or other groups/countries that hate the US.
|
On March 27 2013 23:49 xM(Z wrote:
NK doesn't have a satellite to guide their missile. does that ends the discussion?.
What kind of satellites you need for that?
If i remember correctly, http://www.n2yo.com (site that tracks satellites) han an North-Korean satellite on their database/site. Who knows though.
|
Kwark, are you arguing that the US should nuke North Korea or only that they would be justified if they chose to do so?
|
yes, they have one satellite in some kind of orbit arround Earth, but US said it doesn't function as it should.
if the satellite was operational US would've blew it up. ('cause they can, in most cases, with Aegis interceptor).
also short/medium ranged balistic missiles can be intercepted by SK/Japan (with of course some margin of error)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
